1 NOTICE Decision fi led 09/ 10/10. The text of this decision may be changed or correct ed prior

to t he fi ling of a Peti tio n for

Rehearing o r th e disposit ion of

the same. NO. 5-08-0370 IN THE AP PE LLA TE C O U R T O F IL LIN O IS

FI FTH DI STRI CT

________________________________________________________________________ TH E P EO PLE OF TH E ST ATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal f rom the ) Circui t Court of Plaintiff-A ppella nt, ) Johnson County. ) v. ) No. 07-CM-94 ) ST EVEN BOHANNON, ) Ho nora ble ) Charles C. Cavaness, Defendant-Appe llee

. ) Jud ge, p resid ing.

________________________________________________________________________ PR ESIDIN G JU STICE GO LDE NH ER SH d elivered th e opin ion o f the co urt: De fend ant, Stev en Bohannon, was charged with obstructing a peace of ficer under the CriminalCode of 1961 (720 ILCS 5 /31-1 ( West 2006)) in t he circ uit cour

t of Johns on County. The circuit court dismi ssed the charge . On appeal, t he State cont ends that

the dismissal was improper. W e affirm. FACTS Acc ordingto re por ts of t he V ienn a po lice d epa rtme nt, d efen dan t wa s drivi ng h i s vehicle alone, when he w as stopped at a random roadside safe ty checkpoin t. Up on s top pin g, Vienna Police Chi ef

Jim Mill er ask ed defendant to produce a driv er' s li cense and proof of insurance. Defendant re fused. Chie f Miller and other of

ficer s ask ed agai n and defendant again refuse d. Defendant was ar rest ed afte r tel ling

the offi cers t

hat he would not

produce the docu ments and that they w ould have to a rrest him. Defendantwas pl ace d un der arre st an d ch arged by i nfo rma tion wit h ob struc ting a peace officer (720 ILCS 5/31 -1 (West 2006)). The amended infor mation s tate d as follows: "Thaton or about t

he 3rd day of July, 2007, in Johnson County, Il linoi s, the2

[d]efe ndan t, STE VEN S . B OHANNON , committed the off ense of OBSTRUCTI NG A POLI CE OFFICER , in viol ation of [sect ion 31-1 of

the Criminal Code of 1961 (720 ILCS 5/31 -1 (W est 20 06))], in that said [d]efe ndan t kno wingly r esisted the perfor mance of [Vienna Pol ice Chief] J im Mille r, a per son known by the [d] efendant to be a pea ce officer, of an autho rized act w ithin [Vienna Police C hief] Ji m M il le r's capacit y, na m el y t he in ve st ig at io n o f t he [d ]e fe nd an t's Il lino is driver' s li cense and liability insurance cover age st atus, in that t he [d]ef endant re fusedto prov ide [Vienna Police Ch ie f] Jim M iller with a valid Illinois d river's license a nd p roof o f liabili t y insurance after [Vienna Police C hief] Jim M iller repe atedly asked th e [d]efenda nt to provi de [Vienna Pol ice C hie f] Ji m Miller wit h a val id I llinois driver' s li cense and proof of liabil ity insurance cover age." Alth ough the narrativ e of the pol ice re ports indicat es that defendan t was iss ued tra ffic cita tions for t he failure to display h is driver' s license and p roof of insuran ce, the record before this court do es not conta in any such citations or ord er of d ispositio n on any tra ffic offense

. The tri al court

dismi ssed the charge of obstruc tionon the moti on of defendant . The court noted that t he allegat ions did n ot involve iss ues o f officer safety or refu sal to ex it a vehi cle. The cour t foun d that th e alleged cond uct mo re clos ely res emb led a re fusal to answer questi on s of a police officer th an a p hysic al act. T he co urt ruled that the mere r efusa l to provi de a driv er' s li cense and proof of insurance did not

consti tute obs truction of a pea ce officer. The trial court de nied the State's motion to recon sider and the State ap pealed. AN AL Y SIS The leg isl ature ha s ves ted law enforcement wit h the autho rit y t o r eq ue st a d ri ve r's license and p roof o f insura nce. The Illinois Vehicle Code provides that a driver must carry3

a license and e xhib it itwhen reque sted by a l aw enforcement offi cial . 625 I LCS 5/6- 112 (West 2006). This section st ates t hat a driver " shalldispl ay such license or pe rmit if it is in his poss essionupo n dem and m ade, wh en in unifor m or displ ayinga badge or other s ign of authori ty, by a *** polic e offi cer." 625 ILCS 5/6- 112 (West 2006). The I llinoi s V ehicle Code furthe r provide s, "An y per son w ho fa ils to comply with arequest by a law enforc ement offi cerfor di splay of

evi dence of i nsurance *** shallbe deemed to be operatingan uninsur ed motor vehicle." 62 5 ILCS 5/3-707 (b) (W est 2006). The fate of a ny cita tions u nder either o f these provisio ns is unclear from the record before this court. At is sue on appealis a charge o f o bst ru ct in g apea ce o ff

ic er(7 20 I LCS 5/31-1 (West 2006)). On the rele vant date, the Criminal Code of 1961 provided as follows: "§31-1. Resisting or obst ruc ting a peace off

icer or correctional insti tuti on employe e. (a) A person who knowing ly res ist s or obst ruct s the performance by one kn own to the pe rson to be a peace off icer or correctional inst itution employe e of any authori zed act within his offi cialcapacit y commits a Class A misdemeanor ." 720 ILCS 5/31-1(a) (W est 2006). A person violat es this provi sion only if he engag es in conduct that "resi sts o r obstructs" (720 I LCS 5/31- 1(a) ( West 2006)). This phrase has been the subj ect of much discuss ion. In Raby , the Illinois Su prem e Co urt def ined th e terms :

" ' "Resisting" or "resistance" mean s "withstand ing the force or eff ect of" or t

he "exert ion of oneself to counteract or defeat". "Ob struct" m eans "to be or come in t he way of". These terms are ali ke in that they imply some physi cal act or exertion. Given a reasona ble and n atural construction, t he se terms do n ot proscribe m ere argument

with a policeman about the vali dity of an arrest or other police acti on, but proscribe only some physi cal act which impos es an obst acle which may impede,4

hinder, interrup t, prevent[,] or delay the performance of the offi cer's duties, such as goinglimp, forcef

ully r esisting arres t[,] or phy sically a iding a th ird par ty to avo id arrest.' " People v. Raby , 40 I ll. 2d 392, 399, 240 N.E.2d 595, 599 (1968) (quoting Landry v. Daley , 280 F. Supp. 93 8, 959 (N .D. Ill. 1968), rev'd on ot her grounds sub

nom . Boyle v. Landry , 401 U .S. 77, 27 L. E d. 2d 69 6, 91 S. C t. 758 (197 1)). See Peop le v. Sy nno tt , 349 I ll. App. 3d 223, 225, 811 N.E .2d 2 36, 2 38 (2 004 ); People v. Meister , 289 Ill. App. 3 d 33 7, 34 1, 68 2 N .E.2 d 30 6, 30 8 (19 97); People v. Weathington , 82 Il l. 2d 183, 186 , 411 N.E .2d 8 62, 8 63 (1 980 ); People v. Gibbs , 115 I ll. App. 2d 113, 117, 253 N.E.2d 117, 119 (1969); see als o City of Chicago v. Meyer , 44 Il l. 2d 1, 3, 253 N.E.2d 400, 40 1 (1969 ). The emphasis on whetherde fe nd an t's condu ct was a p hysical act is misplaced

. Raby and its prog eny reveal a concern that t he phrase "resi sts orobstructs" i s not defined so broa dly that

it places citizens in jeopard y of an arrest for m ere verbal disagreemen t. Whether
seen as mo re verba l or mo re ph ysical, defen dant's co ndu ct und oub te dly subj ect ed him to
arres t. The le gis lature resol vedany ambiguity r egarding the level of physicality nece ssary foran arrestund er th e Illino is V ehic le C ode by p rovid ing a definition for the w ord "display." The Illinois Ve hicle C ode p rovides a s follow s:

"Forthe purpos es of this section , 'display' mea ns the man ual su rrend er of h is license certificate into the ha nds o f the de man ding offic er for h is inspection thereo f." 625 ILCS 5/6-1 12 (W est 2006). See also 625 ILCS 5/3-707 (W est 2006) (o peration of un insured mo tor vehicle). The author it y o f l aw en fo rc em en t o ff ic er s t o r eq ue st id en ti fi ca ti on an d d ef en da nt 's duty to com ply are set forth in Illinois Vehicle Code. The question is whether, i n light of these provisio ns, the failure to com ply also con stitute s ob struc ting a peace off icer unde r the CriminalCode of 1961. This i s a quest ion of statutor y constr uction.5

Con text can clarify. This case i s distinct f rom inst ances in which a l esser- include d offense for the same conduct is pros cribed by another stat ute. S ee Peop le v. Sy nno tt , 349 Ill. App. 3d 223 , 22 8, 8 11 N .E. 2d 2 36, 240 (20 04) . Th e br oad man date again st ob struc ting a peace officer in the Criminal Code of 1961 addr esses v aried c onductencou ntered by o fficers perfor ming their

duty to keep the peace

. In contra st, the n arrow er langu age of th e Illinois Ve hicle Code is limited to t raffic stops. The specif ic andtailored provisio ns of th e Illinois Ve hicle Co de req uiring the display of the d river's license a nd p roof o f insura nce d ictate the ir applic ation to this vehi cle st op. In the words of Justice Day: "It is awe ll-settled p rinciple of const ruction t hat s peci fic ter

ms covering the giv en subject -matt er willprevai l ove r general langu age of the same or another statut e which might otherwise prove controll ing." Kepner v. United St

ates , 195 U .S. 100, 12 5, 49 L. E d. 114, 1 23, 24 S. C t. 797, 80 3 (1904 ). Fundamental ly , the res olution of this a ppea l goes be yon d dec iding w hich s tatute shou ld be gi ven pri orit

y. Extending

the Criminal Code of 1961 t o the case a t hand wo uld not merely g o beyond placi ng an addi tionallev el of culpability on defendant for the same conduct. Indeed, the c harges of obstr ucting a peace off

icer would be inexpli cable wit hout the authori ty gr anted t o law enforce ment in t he appli cable pr ovis ions of t he Illinois Ve hicle Cod e. In other words, the State invites a circula r defin ition. T he ph rase "kn ow ingly resists
or obstructs" makes no sense i n a vacuum. Any charge of obst ructi ng a p eace officer is deriv ativ e. Defendant's c onduct is g ive n meaningonly in l ight of the cont ext of " the perfor mance by * ** a p eace officer * ** o f any autho rized a ct with in his official capacity." 720 ILCS 5/31-1(a) (W est 2006). This, of c ourse, beg s the questi on–What is the " authori zed act"? In the case at

hand, the r equest f

or the di splay of

a lic ense andproof of insurance was the authori zed act. Notably, t he Il linoi s Vehi cl e Code crimi naliz es the f ailure to dis play6

properdocuments. 625 ILCS 5/6- 112 (W est 20 06); Peop le v. Ste ele , 366 Il l. App. 3d 220, 223, 851 N. E.2 d 92 0, 9 23 ( 200 6). A ssu min g t he fa ct s p re se nt edinth e p ol ic e r ep orts , we conclude that de fendant was not obstruc tingor resist ing an inve sti gat ion int o whether the laws of Ill inois were viol ated; he was committing t he actualoffense s proscribed by the Illinois Ve hicle Code. See Peop le v. Ste ele , 366 I ll. App. 3d 220, 223, 851 N.E.2d 920, 923 (2006); see People v. Hacker , 388 I ll. App. 3d 346, 350, 902 N.E.2d 792, 796 ( 2009) (roadsi de safet

y checks may not amount to c rimi nal inv esti gat ions). The conduct prohibited by the Illinois Vehicle C ode w as the failure to display. A charge of obstr

ucting a peace off

icer mus t be premi sed on the off icer' s perfor

mance of an authori zed act. In t his cas e, defendant 's condu ct is the exact same cri minal a ct prohibi tedby the st atute s from which t he premis e for i mposingthe Criminal Code of 1961 deriv ed. The acts alle ged t o be resi stance and obstruc tion were s ubsumed in t he provi sions of the Illinois Vehicle C ode. T his pyramid is an unsoun d structure. The police report s sugg est t hat defe ndant was objec tingto the requests of law enforcement

as a matt er of

principle. The argume nt in the field co ntinue d thro ugh the halls of the circuit court and left a trail of paper to the app ellate court. If defendan t reads this
co ur t's decisi on as a vindication of his action s, he w ould be w rong. The officers were authori zed to requesta lice nse and pro of o f insu ran ce a nd, ind eed , migh t have been derel ict in their duti es if

they had fa iled to do so. The offi cers were aut horized to arres t defendant forhis fa ilur e to dis play the document s, and the ir aut horit y continue d to actio ns inc ident to the arres t, such a s placing defendant in cust ody and towinghis v ehicl e. Nonethele ss, asi de from the act

ual off enses of t he failure to di splay t

he request ed documents, defendant did not impede the perfor

mance of the duti es of the offi cers. Defe ndant did not resi st bei ng taken into custody, obs truct

the towing

of his v eh icle, or pr ov id e m is le ad in g inf orma ti on. He simpl y viol ated the Il linoi s Vehicle Code.7 CONCL USI ON According ly, t

he order of

the ci rcuit

court i s hereby af

fir med.

Affi rmed.

W ELCH , J., concu rs.

JUST ICE W EX STT EN , dissen ting: I respectfully dissent. I belie ve that the defendant 's conduct suf fici ently s upported a charge of obstr

ucting a peace off

icer ( see Peop le v. Sy nno tt , 349 I ll. App. 3d 223, 225-28, 811 N.E.2d 236, 238-41 (2004) ) , and I note tha t, section s 6-11 2 and 7-60 2 of th e Illinois Ve hicle Code (625 IL CS 5/6-112, 7-602 (West 2006)) aside, po lice agencies are conditi onally a

uthori zed to conduct

roadsi de checkpoi nts suchas the one c onducted i n the present case (s ee Ci ty of Indi anapolis v. Edmond , 531 U.S. 32, 37- 38, 148 L. Ed. 2d 333, 341, 121 S. Ct. 4 47, 4 52 (2 000 ); People v. Hacker , 388 Il l. App. 3d 346, 350-51, 902 N.E.2d 792, 796 (2009)). I fu rt he r n ot e t ha t " [o ]u r s up re m e c ou rt ha s r ep ea te dl y h el d t ha t t he St at e's Attor ney has a respo nsibility for evaluating the evidence and other pertinent fa ctor s in determining wh at offen se can and s hou ld pro perly be charg ed" and that "w he n a de fe nd an t's acthas viola ted mo re than one s ta tute, and each statute requires diff erent proof for convi ction, even t

hough the re may be some overlapping , the def endant may be pr osecuted underthe statut e which provides the great er penalty." People v. Coleman , 205 I ll. App. 3d 567, 57 7, 563 N .E.2d 1 010, 10 16 (199 0).NO. 5-08-0370 IN THE AP PE LLA TE C O U R T O F IL LIN O IS

FI FTH DI STRI CT

___________________________________________________________________________________ TH E P EO PLE OF TH E ST ATE OF ILLINOIS, ) Appeal f rom the ) Circui t Court of Plaintiff-A ppella nt, ) Johnson County. ) v. ) No. 07-CM-94 ) ST EVEN BOHANNON, ) Ho nora ble ) Charles C. Cavaness, Defendant-Appe llee

. ) Jud ge, p resid ing.

___________________________________________________________________________________ Opini on Fi led : Septe mber 10, 2010

___________________________________________________________________________________ Justi ces : Honorable R ichard P. Goldenhersh, P.J.

Hon orable Th omas M . W elch, J., conc urs Honorable James M. W exstt en, J., dissenting

___________________________________________________________________________________ Attorn eys Hon . Tricia Turn er Shelton, State's Attorney, Johnso n Co unty C ourthouse , for Vienn a, IL 62995; Pa trick Delfino, Directo r, Stephen E . Norris, D eputy D irector, Appe llant Da vid Murrell, Staf f Att orney, Offi ce of

the State's Attorneys Appellate Prose cutor, 730 E. Il linoi s Highway 15, Suite 2, P.O. Box 2249, Mt. Vernon, IL 62864

___________________________________________________________________________________ Attorn eys Michael J. Pell etie r, State Appel late Defender, Johannah B. W eber, D eputy D efender, for John H. G leason , Assistan t Appe llate D efend er, O ffice of th e State Ap pellate Appell ee Defender, 117 N. Tenth S treet , Sui te 300, Mt. Vernon, IL 62864

___________________________________________________________________________________